Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Six Battalions, the United Nations, ' - - - and it is the Fault of the Jews'

Israel has an ancient history - but it's a very new country. The most recent diaspora was a very long one. Descendants of Abraham and Israel didn't manage to re-establish a national government until the mid-20th century, after a hiatus of nearly 1,900 years. Quite a bit happened in their absence, and the current government is a new entity, not a continuation of what was around when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire.

I think some problems in the Middle East stem from a domestic dispute that happened about 7,000 years after Jericho's founding, and 4,000 years before our time. (October 8, 2007) Israel's current government is new: the area Israel is in is anything but.

Israel isn't America

"Israeli politics in tailspin over Iran"
Jon B. Alterman, CNN (May 2, 2012)

"Israel, by necessity, has developed one of the most able security and intelligence apparatus in the world. There has been no necessity to develop a world-class political apparatus, however, and it shows.

"In a single week, the Israeli army's chief of staff, the former head of internal security and the former head of external security have all publicly questioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judgment on Iran. While the current army chief spoke narrowly about the Iranian government, the former security officials directed their fire at Israeli politicians. On Friday, the former internal security chief told an Israeli audience, 'I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings' -- and he was speaking not of Iran, but of Israel.

"Last week was Israel's independence day, traditionally an occasion of pride and celebration. Instead, Israelis are in a deep funk...."
America has a two-party system that's lasted as long as it has because folks in both parties have been moderately competent at appealing to a fairly wide swath of the voting public. My opinion.

Not all countries have a stable two-party system. When folks from the 'Dental Floss Party,' the 'Union of Thatch Roof Owners,' and whatever other outfits have enough backing to get a foot in the local equivalent of Congress: politics won't look like politics in America. But I think a system like that can work. Take France, as an example.

Israel doesn't have a generations-deep tradition of two-party politics. On top of that, America is over three and a half times as old as Israel's current government. We've had time to thrash out a modestly adequate system. When the country I'm in was as old as Israel is now, filibusters were new; war with Mexico was brewing; a major internal war wouldn't come for a couple decades: and that's almost another topic.

I think it takes time for a country to work out a system as comparatively practical and SNAFU-free as what America has.

I realize that CNN has to attract readers, and that criticizing the way foreigners run their country is a perennial crowd pleaser. Oh, well.

The United Nations is "Appalled" by Israel: Again; Still

"UN 'appalled' by Israel treatment of hunger strikers"
Yolande Knell, BBC News (May 2, 2012)

"A UN expert has said he is appalled by the 'continuing human rights violations in Israeli prisons', as Palestinian inmates continue a mass hunger strike.

"Special Rapporteur [!] Robert Falk said Israel had to treat hunger strikers in line with international standards.

"Israel's Prison Service says some 1,550 Palestinians in jail are on strike.

"Doctors have expressed serious concern about two men who have been refusing food for 63 days in protest at being detained without charge or trial...."
"Without charge or trial" may or may not be a valid complaint.

The hunger strikers, who decided to be hunger strikers? I suppose Israel's government could force them to eat. Which could be showcased as appalling indifference to the hunger strikers' conscience, or religious feelings, or whatever.

Given the sort of knee-jerk 'blame the Jews' reaction to unpleasant realities I've come to expect from the United Nations and other 'civilized' folks: this latest complaint sounds like more of the same.

'The Jews starve people' is another perennial favorite in some circles. (April 19, 2008)

Moving on.

Sinai Peninsula: Remarkable Coverage

"Tel Aviv boosts troops at borders with Egypt and Syria"
RT (May 2, 2012)

"Israel is to deploy at least 22 reserve battalions on its borders with Egypt and Syria, claiming the growing instability in the two countries makes it necessary to be ready for possible external security threats.

"The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has been given an approval of a call-up of additional force by Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee although they exceed the average. Reservists from six battalions have already received their orders, even though many of them are soldiers who have already completed their annual reserve duty.

"Israeli generals say these troops are needed to deal with security threats which are coming from Israel's borders with Egypt and Syria, and also because of growing instability in those countries.

"The situation on the Sinai Peninsula which borders Israel is becoming unmanageable, RT's correspondent Paula Slier reports from Israel. Since the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, she said, Sinai police have been attacked more than 50 times by local Palestinian jihadist groups, as well as by the local branch of Al-Qaeda which is operating in the region. ..."
RT's coverage is remarkable, I think, for not trotting out 'experts,' 'concerned citizens,' and the United Nations being appalled, for the usual 'and it is the fault of the Jews' show.

Maybe they're part of that vast conspiracy of Jews we keep hearing about. Or, not.

The Wall Street Journal: 'Well! What Do You Expect?'

"Israel Fortifies Border Fence With Lebanon"
Associated Press, via The Wall Street Journal (May 1, 2012)

"Israel has begun fortifying a fence along its volatile border with Lebanon, reinforcing an especially dangerous section that has been susceptible to sniper fire and other threats, military officials said Tuesday.

"The military said the project was strengthening a half-mile (one kilometer) section of an existing fence in Israeli territory, and no modifications to the route were being made. Even so, to avoid friction, it said construction was coordinated with the Lebanese army and the U.N. peacekeeping force in the area, UNIFIL.

"Israel has no diplomatic relations with Lebanon. The two countries have been in a state of war for six decades.

"The project is taking place near the spot where an Israeli officer was killed by a sniper two years ago. The shooting took place as the Israeli army was clearing brush that it said Lebanese guerrillas could use for cover...."
This Associate Press article, on The Wall Street Journal's website, is another fairly calm discussion of what sadly is business-as-usual in the Middle East. I suppose a dedicated conspiracy buff could be convinced that 'the Jews' really control the AP and The Wall Street Journal - and the Internet - and the brains of everybody who doesn't have aluminum foil inside his hat.

A bit more seriously, I don't like the way Egypt is developing, now that the old strongman got booted out. Still, it could be worse. A lot worse. Iran is a case-in-point.

If I seem indifferent or unconcerned: sorry about that. What's been happening for the last several decades in that part of the world is not good news. But what I've seen in the news recently, although reason for concern, isn't all that different from what I've been seeing for most of my life. I'm not going to go ballistic over 'more of the same.'

Related posts:
Background, the United States at 64:
A tip of the hat to Patty Garza, on Google+, for the heads-up on news from the Egypt-Israel border.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Bus Stop in Jerusalem Bombed: Here We Go Again?

I don't run into hatred of Jews all that often in this country. Even so, there are a few here who seem to assume that things they don't like are 'the fault of the Jews.'

What, if anything, does this have to do with the war on terror?

I think that hatred - of the Jews, Western civilization, dogs1, mice2, and new ideas - is a big motivation for outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In my opinion:
  • Islam is more than just
    • The anti-mouse contingent
    • Terrorism
  • Islamic Terrorists are more than just
    • Folks with wacky religious beliefs
    • Oppressed
      • Minorities
      • Majorities
      • Whatever
I'll get back to my take on the guys who want women back behind burqas, looking (one insisted) at the world with one eye.

"One eye?!"Remember: the 'one eye' and 'mouse' nut jobs (my view) are not all there is to Islam. Neither is the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques: although it's easy to get the impression that Islam is a House of Saud franchise. And that's almost another topic.

Do I think Israel, and the current administration there, is perfect, a paragon of all virtues? Hardly. Folks living in Israel are human beings: and perfect is what human beings are most certainly not.

On the other hand, I'm not inclined to add "and it is the fault of the Jews" after each of these excerpts:
"A woman was killed and more than 50 people were wounded when a loud explosion shook a busy street in Jerusalem as the evening rush hour began on Wednesday, authorities said.

"Several of the wounded were critically injured in the first serious bombing in Jerusalem in four years, authorities said.

"Mayor Nir Barkat condemned the 'cowardly terrorist attack' in which 'innocent people were hurt.'..."
(CNN)

"One person has died and more than 20 others are injured after a bomb blast at a crowded bus stop in central Jerusalem, Israeli officials say.

"The bomb had been left in a bag by the side of the road near the central bus station, police said.

"Dozens of ambulances converged on the scene near the entrance to the city, and police sealed off the area...."
(BBC News)

"Palestinian rockets struck two cities deep in Israel Wednesday, wounding a resident and prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to threaten lengthy "exchanges of blows" with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

"Islamic Jihad, a smaller Gaza faction and occasional Hamas ally, claimed responsibility for the attacks on Beersheba and Ashdod.

"They followed Israeli air strikes and shelling in the Gaza Strip Tuesday that killed four Palestinian civilians, including three children playing football, and five militants, medical officials said...."
(Reuters Africa)

"A sharp increase in tensions along the Israel-Gaza border has escalated fears of a repeat of the Israeli war two years ago.

"An Israeli attempt to hit Palestinian militants who had fired rockets at Israel went horribly wrong on Tuesday, with mortar shells killing three youths playing soccer and a 60-year-old grandfather leaving his house.

"Later, in an unrelated attack, the Israeli air force killed four militants in a car. It said they were members of Islamic Jihad on their way to launch rockets at Israel...."
(The Sydney Morning Herald)

"8-year-old boy's transfer into Israel was coordinated with PA; Israel offered medical treatment to civilians injured by IDF mortar strike.

"An eight-year-old boy from Gaza who was seriously injured by an IDF mortar shell was transferred to an Israeli hospital on Wednesday.

"The IDF's Gaza Coordination Liaison Administration said that the boy was transferred into Israel by ambulance after it coordinated with the Palestinians...."
(The Jerusalem Post)

Bias by the Bushel

It's fairly easy to plug in biases about "towelheads," Jews, oppressor classes, or shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men: and blame Them.

Whoever planted that bomb was probably motivated, at least partly, by something that happened in the last few years. Maybe "Zionist aggression." Or regrettable toilet training. I really don't know.

Root causes of what we're all dealing with in the Middle East go back about 11 millennia - and that's almost another topic again.

The point I'm trying to make is that I have trouble thinking the Middle East mess is a simple good guy/bad guy situation. Which isn't the same as thinking it's okay to kill somebody at a bus stop. No matter how big a snit the person is in.

As for most Palestinians, I sympathize with the folks who want to raise their families and keep their jobs or shops. They're in a tough position. There's what I understand is essentially an unresolved property dispute - and they're being 'helped' by neighboring rulers who seem to be determined that Palestinians get plenty of weapons, but not much money.

And that isn't another topic.

Not Killing Your Neighbor: What a Concept!

The idea has caught on, in many parts of the world, that it's not okay to kill your neighbor.

Even if your neighbor isn't related to you, doesn't go to the same church, doesn't wear the same clothes, and doesn't act exactly the same way as you do.

It's taken a long time, but today we've got the European Union - which would have seemed impossible, I think, only a few generations back. The country I live in is in its third century of not killing people because they don't go to the right church. America isn't perfect: and I've discussed that before. (July 3, 2008)

It is possible for folks who aren't exactly alike to live near each other, without trying to kill each other.

'We've Never Done That Before'

Change hurts, change happens. I've said that quite often.

Here in America, quite a few articles in business magazines discuss how to deal with someone in the office who can't - or won't - accept a change in routine. These days, a business that can't deal with changes in the market often fails.

That's this country.

I've gotten the impression that some parts of the world, like the Middle East, folks have been dragged over several millennia of change in a generation or two.

It must be a terrible shock to go from a world of one-eyed burqas to one with several hundred channels of television pouring dog food commercials, Bay Watch reruns, and Disney cartoons over a culture that hadn't changed much since the days of Abram.

No wonder some folks went a bit crazy.

Burqas, 'Those Muslims,' and Ephesians 5:22

I said I'd "get back to my take on the guys who want women back behind burqas." Here goes.

I think - besides religious, economic, and apparently psychiatric, issues - some of what's bothering folks who blow up bus stops and flew planes into skyscrapers is a matter of domestic power.

I've read explanations of the position of women in a 'truly' Islamic society, written by Muslims who live in cultures that don't have a problem with women who can read and write. I believe them.

I also think that there are others - men who are convinced that their village is the only 'truly' Islamic place in the world - who have very different view of women.

For that matter, there are folks who are convinced that they alone are 'real' Christians, and who live by Ephesians 5:22: not Ephesians 5:21-30. I'm a practicing Catholic, I'm not allowed to ignore the 'big picture,' and that's a topic for another blog. (A Catholic Citizen in America (December 14, 2010))

The Odd Case of the Anachronistic Electrician

The place of women in society has changed a great deal during the last half-century: at least here in America. I think much of Western civilization went through a similar change.

It hasn't been easy. And still isn't, for a few folks. Like this one electrician.

Not too many years ago, an electrician came to my household. My wife had noticed an issue with part of the electrical system, and had made arrangements for him to come. Purely routine stuff.

Until the electrician arrived. He wouldn't talk to my wife. Not about the wiring issue. The three of us spent maybe 20 minutes in the kitchen: he'd ask me a question, I'd ask my wife, she'd reply, and I'd repeat what she said.

She and I think it's funny: but I can see how not everybody would.

The anachronistic electrician was harmless. He's a man from another era, who apparently couldn't cope with a woman who knew more about a technical issue than her husband. I was there to act as an interpreter, and the job got done. Case closed.

Someone from a place where folks really believe that a husband has a right - even a duty - to kill his daughter if she 'shames the family?' That person is, I think, anything but harmless.

I think tolerance is a good idea. As a member of a religious minority, I'd be nuts not to urge tolerance. But there's tolerance, and there's the sort of clueless 'let's placate these people' attitude. And I've discussed that before, too. (October 21, 2010)

Related posts:
News and views:
Background:

1This awful, horrible, offensive, unclean puppy outraged the sensibilities of Muslims living in Tayside, UK.

2 Puppies aren't the only Western threat to Islam:
As I wrote in 2008, "I'm not making this up."

Not all Muslims are offended by puppies, I'm pretty sure. Or see Mickey Mouse as an agent of Satan. I've given my take on culture, and Islam's image, before:

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers

In today's news:
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unveiled Iran's first domestically-built unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an 'ambassador of death' to the country's enemies.

"The 4m-long drone aircraft can carry up to four cruise missiles and will have a range of 620 miles, according to a state TV report - but not far enough to reach arch-enemy Israel.

" 'The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship,' Mr Ahmadinejad said at the inauguration ceremony in Tehran...."
(Press Association)
This carrier drone is impressive. On the other hand, Iran has had the X-55 LACM in its arsenal for years. (GlobalSecurity.org) That cruse missile has a range of 3,000 kilometers, or about 1,864 miles. America's comparatively safe from an attack using the X-55 LACM. Southern Russia? Not so much. I've written about that before.

Middle East: Where Pre-Industrial Cultures Face the Information Age

I've made the point before, that many people in the Middle East had been out of the loop for centuries - millennia in some cases. After the fall of the Persian and Roman Empires, with a few relatively brief exceptions, events in the rest of the world went on without troubling customs which had been old when Abraham moved out of Ur.

Then people in Europe and North America developed technologies that required petroleum. Lots of petroleum. Suddenly outsiders came, bringing strange new ideas with them.

The old-school cultures of the Middle East might have weathered that, but a few decades ago the Information Age started. I've managed to adjust to a world where I can communicate with people on the other side of the world: but I'm an American, and my ancestors had already gotten used to changing technologies.

It's not just technology, although today's infotech is affecting folks in the Middle East.

Again, my ancestors came from Europe and settled in America: where they learned how to deal with other folks who didn't have exactly the same set of cultural preferences. Without killing them.

I have some sympathy for the old-school folks, who were dragged from a comfortably insulated society of burqas and honor killings to a world of bikinis, beer and dog food commercials. It must be a terribly unsettling experience.

Andy Capp, Iran, and Nuclear Weapons

There's an old Andy Capp comic strip, where a police officer is repeating what Mr. Capp told him: something like 'I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first.'

That's funny, I think.

That's not, as a rule, a philosophy which I think should be applied to international diplomacy.

It'd be nice if Iran really did use their new robot bomber strictly as a deterrent. Then they might feel a little safer from the Jews and the Great Satan America.

My concern is that they'll decide that someone in range of their various short-, medium-, and long-range weapons is a threat; or is insufficiently Islamic, or whatever: and have a shot at killing some of the offending parties.

From what shows up in the news from time to time, my guess is that I'm not the only one with that sort of concern.

Can America 'hit him back first?'

In strictly practical terms: probably. Almost certainly, in fact. And then there would be cries (self?) righteous indignation from most of the national governments whose bacon we kept from frying. Unless there wasn't much of Iran left, there would probably be attacks against everyone and anyone within reach.

Not a good situation.

The alternative isn't too pleasant to contemplate, either: but there's the chance that the Ayatollahs will finally mismanage their government into oblivion, and let someone else have a crack at running the country.

Stranger things have happened.

Related posts:In the news:

Friday, December 25, 2009

"Simple Guards", Indecent Gestures, and the Dark Side of Diplomatic Immunity

The original Jerusalem Post article isn't online at the moment, it seems.

Excerpts from another source, referring to the J.P. article:
" An American diplomatic vehicle allegedly tried to run over an Israeli security guard at a border checkpoint in Israel last month, setting off a diplomatic scuffle that is straining relations between the two nations, the Jerusalem Post reported.

"In an episode that was reportedly caught on tape, a five-car U.S. convoy was stopped at the Gilboa border crossing in the northern West Bank on Nov. 13 but refused to identify themselves or open any windows or doors for inspection by Israeli security...."

"...Drivers in the American convoy blocked the crossing, the report says, tried running over a Defense Ministry security guard and made indecent gestures at female guards, the Jerusalem Post reported...."

"...The U.S. response, the Post norted[!], further angered Israeli officials: the chief regional security officer reportedly told his Israeli counterparts that "simple guards" had no authority to inspect senior diplomats...."
("Israel: U.S. Consulate Car Tried to Run Over Checkpoint Guard" FOXNews (December 25, 2009))
If you've been following this blog, you probably know that I'm an American citizen. And, that I don't think America is perfect. (July 3, 2008) I also don't assume that everything an American official does is right. I don't assume that America is the cause of all the world's problems either, but that's another matter.

"Simple Guards"?!

Okay: maybe there was a reasonable excuse for what whoever was running that 'diplomatic' convoy did. Maybe.

But, after the fact - calling the Israeli security people "simple guards"?!

Sure, those "simple guards" probably don't make as much money as most big-shot diplomats. They probably don't even know what cocktails are 'in' this year, or who to shun at Aspen. Those "simple guards" are just the sort of lower-class persons that the 'right sort' go to great lengths to avoid.

Can't say that I blame them. If I thought my value as a person was directly connected to how many polo ponies I owned, or whatever the status symbols are this year, I'd avoid people like me, too. (More, at "Lemming Tracks: Lower Middle Class and Loving It", Apathetic Lemming of the North ((December 14, 2009))

"Indecent Gestures" - Figures

As for making "indecent gestures at female guards" - well, considering the sort of trailer trash (their term, not mine) that some of the 'proper sort' think infest the American military, and given some dearly-held assumptions about the linkage between social position and respect: that sort of makes sense. That sort of person deserves no respect at all, right? (More: "All Those 'Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America!' " (January 4, 2009))

Maybe There's a Good Explanation

I think it's (barely) possible that there's a reasonable, decent, explanation for the abysmal behavior (allegedly) exhibited by the American - ah, diplomats. Even less likely, in my opinion, it's some sort of plot by Israel to alienate America and/or embarrass the American "diplomatic" corps. Or maybe the shape-shifting space-alien lizard people are behind it.

But, I don't think any of that is likely.

It's the "indecent gesture" thing that sent me over the top with this.

We're between news cycles right now, in terms of "diplomatic immunity." They don't come often - but I expect, in a few years, or maybe a decade or so, to start reading about shenanigans in New York City, or another major city, of diplomats who realize that they
  • Don't have to have their chauffeurs obey the traffic and parking regulations that commoners do
  • Can hit people if they want to:
    • Reporters
    • Waiters
    • Ugly, common, unimportant people
You get the picture.

Not all diplomats are like that, of course. Most, I trust, understand what "diplomatic immunity" is for: and don't use it as a sort of "get out of jail free" card.

But diplomats are human beings. And, some human beings are jerks.

And a jerk with diplomatic immunity - or any sense of entitlement - gets to be a big jerk mighty fast.

Applying Occam's Razor, I think the simplest explanation for what happened at that crossing is that there were some grade-A, 24-carat jerks in those diplomatic vehicles.

Related posts:

Thursday, June 4, 2009

President Obama, Palestine, and Hamas: It Could be Worse

It could be worse.

President Barack Obama, speaking at Cairo University, seems to have recognized Hamas as a legitimate part of Palestinian society, politics, and military.

On the other hand, he said that Hamas ought to give up its position that Israel should be stamped out. I agree with the president, in a way: that would be nice.

Being very careful to say "Israelis," rather than "Israel," Obama said that 'settlements' should not be built in territory that Palestinians think is theirs.

And, I think significantly, President Obama said that Arab nations should stop using Israel as a convenient scapegoat, a distraction from their own inadequacies.

The president put it much more nicely than that, of course.

I excerpted five paragraphs from President Obama's address, emphasizing what I think are important points.
"...Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

"And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

"And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

"America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true...." (President Barack Obama June 4, 2009) [emphasis mine]
President Obama's distinction between "Israeli" and "Israel" was important. Although it's possible that the Israeli government is covertly encouraging settlement, the settlements are not officially sanctioned. And, from time to time, Israeli law enforcement removes the settlers (GlobalSecurity.org (March 27, 2009)) I think it's possible that the continued existence of the Israeli settlements is due not so much to Israeli government policy, as to Israel's failure to impose the lockstep conformity that proper Arab nations like Saudi Arabia expect of their subjects. (Banning Valentine's Day - and the color red?! (February 10, 2009))

I doubt, very much, that Hamas will give up its position that Israel must be destroyed.

I also doubt that Arab nations will stop using 'The Jews' as a distraction. I suspect that anti-Semitism is simply too convenient, and too deeply ingrained in Middle Eastern culture, for that change to take place.

But, I could be wrong. I rather hope that I am. That would be nice.

Related posts:
Text of President Barack Obama's address at Cairo University June 4, 2009, from the White House website.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Cairo,Egypt)

________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

Monday, May 11, 2009

'Pope Turns Back on Peace Dialog' - Sort of

I see in the news that the Pope is spreading distension in the Middle East. My guess is that, at least for a while, anything unpleasant that happens in the general vicinity of Israel will be the fault of the Jews - and the Pope. For 'sophisticated' people, at least.

A sample of what's been going on, during the Papal visit to Israel:

"Pope Benedict XVI urged the Israelis and Palestinians to find a 'just resolution' to their long-running conflict as he arrived in Israel Monday.

" 'I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue,' the pope said, 'So that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.'..." (CNN)

Interreligious Dialog: 'Unite, Muslims and Christians, Against the Murderous Jews'

While in Israel, the Pope attended a meeting for interreligious dialog. Christians, Jews, and Muslims were there.

The Palestinian Authority's Chief Islamic Judge Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi wasn't on the program, but he took the microphone right after the Pope. According to the sheik, Israel kills women and children.

Same old, same old.

I don't doubt that women who weren't putting suicide vests on their children at the moment have been killed by Israeli troops. When terrorists use occupied 'civilian' residences as shields, sooner or later they'll get the sort of publicity they want.

I'll give Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi credit for trying an interesting variation on the tired old "death to the Jews/death to the great Satan America" line.

He said that Muslims and Christians have to work together against Israel.

" 'We struggle together and we suffer together from the injustice of the Israeli occupation and its oppressive practices, and we look forward to freedom and independence,' he said."

Before Germany's efforts to cleanse Europe's gene pool, back in WWII, that might have worked. Anti-Semitism isn't all that popular right now, as public policy. Not in America, anyway: I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem all that widely popular in Europe, either.

About the Pope's call for an independent Palestinian state, that sounds like a nice idea. I think it might work, provided that Arab leaders make good on their pledges of welfare for Palestinians, and that whoever runs the Palestinian state isn't the lot that regards killing Jews as a religious and/or patriotic duty.

The Pope left before the meeting was officially over, and so did a number of the Jews attending. I don't know what sort of significance that has: One news outlet said that the Pope shook Tamimi's hand before leaving. (Jerusalem Post)

In the news: Related posts: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Palestinian Plays Bocce Ball With Bulldozer and Police Car: Blast from the Past

Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, it's the same old thing: Palestinian
  • Wacks out
  • Attacks Jews
  • Gets stopped
The Palestinian died on the way to the hospital. The bus he attacked was empty.

This 'lion of Islam' doesn't get points for originality. Using heavy machinery instead of the traditional suicide belt or Katyusha rocket is old-hat by now.

In a touching tribute to the late Palestinian's faith in Islam, an open copy of the Quran seems to have been in the bulldozer. The news hasn't reported what pages it was open to: that might have been interesting. (Before someone has a fit: there's reason to think that this inefficient assassin, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the House of Saud aren't what Islam is all about.)

Palestinian Attacks Jews with Bulldozer, Backhoe, Tractor, or Something Like That

BBC called the construction machine a front-end loader. I don't think this shows confusion so much as the bewildering diversity of the English language.

The yellow fuzzmobile-whacker has been called a
  • Bulldozer
    • Guardian
    • CNN
    • Reuters
    • Welt Online
  • Backhoe
    • CNN
  • Tractor
    • Xinhua
  • Front-end loader
    • BBC

(from AFP, via Welt Online, used w/o permission)

I'll settle for showing a photo, and letting you sort out what to call it.

And it's the Fault of the Jews

"...Hamas described the attack as a 'natural response' to the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and to the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip...." (guardian.co.uk)

'Nuf said.

Meanwhile, Hamas Calls for End of Violence: Sort of

"Report: Hamas demands Islamic Jihad stop launching

"Sources in Gaza say group wants to show control in region, not escalate situation while negotiations ongoing...." (ynet.com)

Not so much a call for peace, as a turf dispute, and a very real desire to re-arm before pushing Israel too far, again, I'd say.

Attack on Fuzzmobile: A Trip Down Memory Lane

I grew up in the sixties, was in college in the seventies, and remember the 'good old days.'

It was a period of groovy art, cool music, daft ideas, and rock-throwing peaceniks. To be fair, there were non-violent peace-lovers, too: some acting out of a sincerely-held set of beliefs; some too stoned to do much of anything.

Those glory days of anti-war activism were also when all right-thinking people (left-thinking, actually - another oddity of English) hated authority and the police. And, generally called law enforcement personnel 'the fuzz.'

So, reading that a Palestinian (no doubt driven to social awareness and action by The Man) had played bocce ball with a fuzzmobile was a sort of trip down memory lane for this survivor of the sixties.

I've wondered if one reason that some of the better sort in America support the Palestinian Cause is a sort of nostalgia: a yearning for the good old days, when "My Lai" was on everyone's lips, the military was hated, and the fuzz despised.

Just a thought.

Related posts: In the news:

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.